Menu

Is This A Support Group Or A Cult?

If you’re asking yourself this question, you probably know the answer.

Many former members of abuse recovery forums use the word “cult” freshly after ending their group experience, in what I believe to be a spontaneous manner. Without connecting with other former members, they leave isolated testimonies on the web, mentioning this uncanny resemblance.

Although unlike proper cults, forums don’t seek to lock you away in a compound so you can spend every waking moment devoting yourself to their cause, they certainly want a monopoly on your view on human relationships, as well as obedience and loyalty. And, of course, some money, if you’re easily persuaded to reward them for their time. A few of them pitch books written by staff members (I know four such groups at least), some ask for donations and one offers paid counselling sessions by people with no training whatsoever in this field.

A quick list of strikingly similar features between some support groups and cults (freshly edited as the initial one was very long, poorly written and repeated a few points):

The “guru”

All forums of this type I’ve come across – described by many as toxic – are built around a charismatic leader, thought to have superior knowledge; there is obvious adulation and never any criticism. The so-called expert has no studies related to psychology or psychiatry but instead has written one or more books about abusers from personal experience. It is not unheard of for them to ask members to discredit the competition (other authors writing on the same topic). The forums themselves are littered with brownie points; it’s little wonder these people get such a big head.

The clique

A tight-knit group around the leader is chosen to maintain order; they never display any originality and act as if they represented an institution. They are always cheered on by sycophants in swarms, regardless of the absurdity of their behaviour. Brownie points in their direction also abound. It is known that once inside a controlling group, one absorbs the leading team’s attitudes and after a while cannot realise how absurd they seem to the rest of the world.

No dissent

There is a clear demand for complete acquiescence to the group’s understanding of the world, as well as the chosen path to whatever the group aims for (in this case, recovery from abusive relationships) . On PF for instance, a single disagreement means you are one foot out the back door. You will be ”tackled” within minutes for any slightly unconventional opinion, as it will immediately be reported to staff members by the vultures of common orthodoxy, posing as loving, supportive peers. Of course, they are not all like that; many people are truly kind, yet I have to wonder how they can look the other way when others are being mistreated. People are even targeted for making common sense observations, such as the fact that it is preferable for the recovery to be quick as opposed to lasting for months or years. If the group agrees on a standard period of time recovery is expected to last, no other option is considered, as insane as that sounds, since every individual and situation is different. And they expect others to treat their estimations as science, being outraged when contradicted.

The false image

They present themselves as a loving, non-judgemental community while being a gossip-ridden wasp’s nest. People join both support groups and cults in hopes of finding a few all-embracing human beings with a higher capability to love, to connect with others. Just before the people at Jonestown commited mass suicide, they briefly managed to keep up that appearance during the official visit. Initially, they were believed.

Disdain for people with actual knowledge in the field

Akin to so-called Christian cults, who hate it when one of the main denominations exposes their aberrant doctrines as non-compatible with Christianity, such forums have an overt dislike for actual therapists or people who have studied their chosen fields in general. The latter will never last there as it is strictly forbidden to ”profess having higher knowledge”, even when you genuinely have it. Just as a quack would not ask for endorsement from an actual doctor, they know they run an improvised show there and are most likely aware they make tons of mistakes.

The pledge

A pledge is sometimes put before members, which they are encouraged to sign as the symbol of starting a new life. It refers to what they will and won’t do in their private life; very intimate things one should think twice about before jovially signing. And that’s because no stranger has any business interfering with or questioning what you do in your intimate life. It’s one thing to receive advice, and another to adopt a pre-packaged set of rules and morals you find on a website. Even if they sound sensible, for me it’s a bit much. We are all individuals and should never feel accountable to an internet group for what we do privately.

Knowing you better than you know yourself

Such people will boldly tell you not only who you truly are (as you are presumably unable to figure it out by yourself), but who your family members and friends truly are, to the point of lambasting you if you disagree. They will make statements about people they’ve never met and expect you to accept their evaluations, or else. They will draw dramatic conclusions from fleeting online conversations, proving their lack of depth and their sole intention of ”converting” you to their ideology.

Targeting vulnerable people

These sites target people who might not think clearly when joining; staff members are well aware of it and take advantage. The same method is used by cults; they prey almost exclusively on those who are at a crucial junction and don’t know which road to take. Some are suicidal and some just want an ideology to embrace, a new system to live by, if their belief in their former one is shattered.

Attachment and fear of exclusion

One’s journey there consists of love-bombing followed by the swift threat of exclusion, and often swift exclusion as well. At first one is made to feel fully accepted and included; they develop a bond with the group and some of the members in particular, to be coldly reprimanded for trifles and ultimately thrown out. After establishing that the group is the safest environment in the world, the next thing on the list is establishing you might not be worthy of it; you will be permanently scrutinised.

Walking on eggshells around petty tyrants

There is a lot of nit-picking and placing the group’s technicalities above general principles such as compassion and fairness, demonstrating clear pettiness. The examples are countless. Cults are also obsessed with every small rule which helps them believe they re organising themselves according to a well-crafted system.

Former members describe a tightly controlled environment; an overall feeling of walking on eggshells and insecurity about expressing one’s opinion. You just never know when you’ve used too many semicolons. Even if you agree with their principles they will manage to find fault with your posts. Out of the blue, someone will pedantically tell you ”you’re on a recovery forum” and you’re ”detracting from the sole goal of giving and receiving support”. Whatever that means to them.

Paranoia regarding group members

On PF at least, members are told not to trust each other but to trust the leadership instead. They are advised not to make friends straight away, not to communicate privately and so forth. Trust the leadership only. There is also a constant hunt for people who are lying about their situation and have a hidden agenda; new members are targeted immediately, without their knowledge. While they apparently receive you with open arms, they regard everything you post with suspicion and encourage all members to have the same approach. This is very very common in cults and extremist political organisations, where paranoid leaders are always wary of a threat to their status, as well as ”enemy infiltrators”. However, on a recovery forum, that is even more ridiculous.

Permanent ban for trifles

One is subjected to quick and permanent exclusion, no explanation needed. Some cults operate that way, whilst others hardly ever allow you to leave. Scientology can ”declare you a suppressive person” for reading material they disapprove of and associating with people they don’t like , and once you’re out, you’re out. They claim they couldn’t save you from yourself and are suspisicous of anyone who still keeps in touch with you. So does the PF admin.

The enemy

Both cults and said groups target a particular category of enemies against whom all morality must be dropped. In this case, it is of course the huge army of psychopaths and narcissisits sweeping the world.

Dissociation

Forum staff and members constantly push others to cut ties with various people in their entourage. The few weeks I was active on PF, I never once saw advice such as ”maybe you could try to work things out” when a partner or family member was involved. Moreover, they encourage cutting contact with the suspected psychopath’s family and common friends, even when children are involved, as if that person were radioctive material contaminating everyone they met.

The Stasi and the lack of transparency

Since only parts of a forum are visible to all members, the ”backstage” is full of reports, suspicions, gossip, false accusations, and they require no proof to be investigated by staff members, who then analyse a member’s posts for clues of a rotten personality. On PF, there’s reason to believe even data such as their IP, location, other profile information etc is shared with other sites to find matching profiles of ”trouble makers” (LE, this suspicion was confirmed and what is more, they track people’s on-line activity). There is no limit. All ”investigations”, or should I say witch trials, take place behind closed doors, often without the person being aware. Staff members are never accountable before other members. Accusers are never accountable before anyone. This creates an atmosphere of distrust, not to mention omnipotence on the team’s part.

Paranoia regarding outsiders

Cults are famous for this, and so are forums like PF. It’s in their policy to obsessively distrust others. They insist there are psychopaths at every social gathering, in every work environment, in every group. The world is riddled with these monsters and one must always be on guard.

Baseless arrogance and holy literature

The clique has a chip on its shoulder regarding an advanced level of knowledge in the chosen field etc, which is not substantiated by any recognition in real life. They wear their no contact time like a badge of honour, as if they were eerily competing with anyone along those lines. Such groups almost always sell so-called educational material which is improvised, subjective and misleading, usually authored by their guru; in time this material becomes sacrosanct and above all criticism to them. There is a quasi-religious adherence to the principles and rules of the group, forgetting they came out of thin air and are prone to error.

Money

Such groups commonly seek financial support from members, to aid them in their ”sacred mission” of bringing awareness. Some even make a fortune out of it.

Swarming

Such groups regularly swarm any dissenters or critics with smear campaigns, putting aside all human decency, any positive interaction they had with them and so forth. They gang up on people on the forum and outside of it.

Idealising the group

Even though they’re aware of all the conflicts, drama and complaints, they shamelessly promote their groups as the best thing since sliced bread.In complete denial, they dismiss any reports of negative experiences as unimportant or false, while praising the positive ones. Perhaps they even believe their own lies.

The mission

They seem to truly believe their groups have a special mission on this planet and behave as such (they also behave like others should accept that claim). This, in spite of being aware they are all just improvisers with a strong enough attitude to convince others of their legitimacy. They justify their viciousness through the belief that they are fighting the ”dark side” and everyone they attack is hell-bent on jeopardising their ”sacred mission”; they demonise those who disagree with their actions in order to treat them in any manner.

The lingo

Staff members use slogans and memes, as well as a jargon, and encourage members to use them. Many cults have a specific language, especially those based on space aliens; Scientology must have hundreds of terms. Besides using clinical terms, these groups often use “narc”, “spath”, “P” and so forth, to somehow feel they are in the inner circle of understanding.

Corporate speech

They are no longer acting as individuals but as an institution. Plenty messages reek of corporate PR. ”Here at so&so, we pride ourselves in supporting a creative approach to healing. We take great care to ensure every member benefits from personalised advice…etc”. Besides the hypocrisy, this style is ridiculous through its pretentiousness, since they are only running peer support groups.

Tough love

They claim to put pressure on members and treat them with ”tough love” for their own salvation. Cults do this all the time, applying all kinds of public scoldings and punitive measures to ”save people from themselves”.

The common road from an ideology based group to a cult

a. A few people gather to discuss a subject they are emotionally affected by and develop a common understanding of it. They theorise their view with no science behind it and establish a strict guideline they never deviate from. Any members who show critical thinking and keep an open mind are expelled or leave and the group is now made up of extremists, often led by one person.

b. They attract proselytes by love-bombing them at a vulnerable time of their lives; they offer answers to confused people who are desperate to be guided, for unconditional support and a space of self-expression; new members develop a high sense of gratitude and attachment to the group. At first they can’t believe their luck, considering the fact that they are improvisers, but the more proselytes they attract, the more arrogant they become.

c. They market well and gain popularity. They now consider themselves authorities in the matter and there is increased talk about their “mission”; the focus shifts from helping individuals onto the general success of the group, to which members start being sacrificed if they don’t agree 100 per cent with the group view. The initial guideline becomes a fiercely enforced doctrine. Its enforcers become “warriors of light” and anyone who challenges them or disagrees with them is seen as opposing their noble purpose. They start looking down on those who are not “enlightened” enough to fanatically embrace their views as soon as they come across them.

d. They are now paranoid and see enemies and infiltrators everywhere. They spy on their members and each other; any decision-making goes on behind closed doors. The leaders are too important to be held accountable for any decision they make. They should never be questioned or contradicted. They start using duplicitous tactics to spot infiltrators, while maintaining the facade of a loving family to draw more people in.

e. The leaders have now lost all humility and are absorbed by their self-constructed expert status. They solidify their theories by writing more and more material, building a public image of legitimacy in the field. Among their members, they are know-it-all’s and regularly break the rules of decency they impose on others. They are condescending, dismissive, controlling, secretive and abuse the confidence of the unsuspecting. All their empathy is gone. They quickly stick derogatory labels on all critics in order to silence them and engage in outright manipulation of public opinion to defend their behaviour. They contradict themselves by inflating their role in the betterment of their members’ lives and minimising it when members are negatively affected by their experience with the group.

Post navigation

53 thoughts on “Is This A Support Group Or A Cult?”

That rings a bell. When I first went there it felt safe so I shared my story or parts of it and responded to other’s posts. I gave more than I received on there and even the same admin that reprimanded me later and the admin that banned me and got in the last word telling me who I am, and none of it positive, are the same admins that actually liked some of my posts. Figure that one out.

I knew when I was being reprimanded that I was being manipulated and I wouldn’t stand for it. I was told to “go with the flow” basically which means agree with everyone else and don’t have any original and/or contrary thoughts.

This reprimand was not done privately and I was not asked for my side of the story but it was done publicly to try to manipulate me and shame me into complying with their attempt to control my thoughts.

I told the admin that I will be controlled by no one in this manner and that I wanted my account deleted. Then they banned me and made it look like I breached their forum rules and I received one final insult post that I could not defend myself against.

This is just like you quitting your job and then your employer trying to save face and make you look bad says that you didn’t quit but were fired for insubordination or whatever. That is very dishonest in my opinion.

Apparently, they do it all the time and don’t feel any guilt; I suppose that’s because they are not genuine with others to start with.

I know what you’re saying about them liking your posts and suddenly turning against you as if you were a threat, an enemy of some sort. I guess they go into defensive mode (which means aggressive in their case) and forget what they liked about you.

Look at the post made by G1S at bottom (#13), response by Peace that follows, and soon there after moderator Smitten Kitten:

“Shame on her for coming onto our forum and shaming you @Peace. It’s a shame she won’t be able to do that anymore and we won’t be subjected to her know-it-all condescending, shaming posts.”

G1S was banned and keep in mind this was only her/his third post in nine months of membership, I do not see anyone had been subjected to much! But this appears to be protocol to follow post-ban.

What’s interesting is that one time someone was banned bacause she had posted a sarcastic comment much in the same way Peace had. As humor. The member anticipated the ban after some comments had been posted and deleted everything she ever posted. There were holes in conversations everywhere. The only reason I know she was banned is the requisite public shunning and member likes followed. In this case, since there was no post to attach the public shunning, the moderator noted that if members do not see any of her posts it is because she had been banned as being a “P”.

It is obvious that some moderators do not exhibit characteristics that fit the typical profile of someone who experiences a P encounter. First, there is no benefit of doubt. In fact, it seems they look for quick reasons to display the spectacle of banning. Second, they are bullying, hostile types. Third, if the member had been a stalker, why keep the posts if there is true concern for “triggering”? What is the purpose of displaying banned status? Why is it a punishment to the supposed “P” former members who have been banned to keep their posts online? For one, they post anonymously and second, if they were actually a “P” stalking the forum then this would be highly rewarding for them to have their banned/stalker/P status trigger “survivers”. Why do they not simply remove access and delete the one offending post that lead to the ban instead of keeping it on display? None of this is professionally conventional, nor typical behavior of someone who is not a P. Word salad anyone?

That’s exactly what I was wondering regarding the habit of keeping people’s posts; it makes no sense to keep something they claim ”triggers” others. Except if they want to show what happens when someone steps out of line.

Thank you very much for the insight. This proves worse than I imagined (and at times, in my naivety, I even thought I might be paranoid).

They are stalking people. Surely this isn’t legal.

Of course, certain companies providing on-line services do that, like Google and Facebook, but it’s common knowledge and one gives their consent (even if 99% of the time they don’t read the excruciatingly boring TOS or the updates on privacy).

Does PF even put forward a Terms of Service page for people to agree to? I don’t recall seeing one. And I’m sure it would not explicitly mention -if it would mention at all – that admins reserve the right to check up on one’s internet activity at their discretion. Their lengthy membership list would be a lovely 0. Except for themselves, of course.

People register on forums and open up precisely because they think they are protected by anonymity. And these unbelievable pricks have the cheek to refer to ‘safety’ in great detail on their site.

The way I (naively) figured it was that they had a close partnership with other forums of this kind (since they mentioned trouble makers who have tried to discredit other sites and their owners). I thought they compared data to find matching profiles. And that was outrageous in itself.

To think that they actually stalk people’s on-line activity is beyond words and something must be done about this. It would make my day – just saying, not inciting 🙂 – if a very skilled individual managed to access those internal conversations and exposed them before their army of sycophants, in their full ugliness. Although doubtlessly, that would hurt a lot of people’s feelings. But then again, how do you deal with gangrene?

Again, a big thank you; hopefully they won’t get away with it forever.

Edit: Sorry, I was quoting an earlier comment, I always forget to quote properly.

I apologise then; perhaps I took my interpretation too far.

However, as I understood from your comment, they have the ability and intention to access on-line data which is not connected to one’s activity on the forum. That’s extremely intrusive and needless. It exceeds what I’ve seen any forum admin do so far. To me it is a form of stalking, but for legal reasons I will refrain from using that word from now on. One is not asked for permission or informed about this. That’s how I question the legality of their spying. And if it’s legal, it’s definitely not moral; not with members being unaware they are even targeted; let alone spied on.

Just feeling the need to add some things… I understand speaking out against PF causes anxiety and fear of a dirty backlash; that alone shows how intimidating and toxic they are. Although I was just briefly a member, I had these exact thoughts: what if they figure out who I am and expose the sensitive details I gave them in confidence from the dark pit of depression? What if they hound me as they have done to so many others criticising their site?

And then these answers came to mind.

a. It’s not me who has lied to thousands of people. I haven’t told any lies, on their site or this one.
They have and it’s easy to prove.

b. I’m not a public figure, claiming to save people’s lives. They are.

c. I don’t ask for people’s money. They do.

d. Everything I’ve posted here is taken straight from their website, print screens and all (not all posted, obviously, but I do have them). I would absolutely love (and I’m sure many people would) for them to try to publicly explain what the deal is with all those issues. I bet hell will freeze over before that happens.

Something inside told me to pursue this as it would be the right thing to do. And the fact alone that a handful of people have found the site useful is more than enough.

I’m not doing much at all, but I figured even the smallest voice on a barely noticeable site helps in that direction, even with tiny steps.

Reading that Amazon review from time to time (though I missed the exchange of arguments a few weeks ago and now most comments posted by covert PF representatives have been deleted), I noticed a few people maintain this interest. As I am not an Amazon customer however, I can’t post any links there.

Someone there suggested gathering quotes about PF from the web; I’m not sure how ethical that would be, although the reason people posted about it was to spread the truth. But that was then; I’m not sure how either of them would feel now about those posts being copied onto a different website, even omitting the username.

Eileen above (I can’t rely to your comment), you do know that there is a forum to which the leaders forward all the public arguments? It’s called the Meta Forum. Once one, or all of them, engage in a public argument and begin to bait someone they think is disturbing the heavenly peace of the site, the rudeness is ramped up to the point that the member begins to look very deranged while the administrator or moderator looks to be the savior of this evil being infiltrating this safe and sacred online community. It is common for them to keep the argument up for a while so that other members can see what went down prior to the banning. This argument and shaming of the member is then moved to the meta forum where only registered users can see it. This is one of the safeguards of this site — the public can not see the rudeness or emotional abuse of the leaders. After some time, these posts in the Meta Forum are completed deleted.

It happened to me as well; I love it how they use red as the text colour when they reply to posts questioning them, whereas before they would post in the same manner as everyone else. It reminds me of the letters debt collectors send in the UK; the red text scares the hell out of older people.

Yes, Sandra, I did get a chance to see Meta Forum used in that way for special cases. In this case it was a moderator being identified as a potential P. It started out with Peace asking about a moderator (courtesy Wayback Machine):

“Hi everyone,
￼￼I’m sure many of you have noticed that @Questionmark hasn’t been online for three weeks now. @SearchingForSunshine and others have made every effort to contact him, but unfortunately we still don’t have any updates.
Please keep him in your thoughts / hearts / prayers / however you put some hope into the world. No matter where he is, I’m sure he could use the good energy. If you have any news, please do let us know. Hoping above all that he is safe & happy.
QM, I really, really miss your warm & loving posts around here. The gardening and coffee threads aren’t the same! Please be okay.”

This somehow escalated within days into Questionmark being a potentially hospitalized/dead then when that lost momentum being a P. This was deduced simply because he alive (per police reports), had new modem (per neighbour reports) but was no longer participating in PF. There was a lot of crying and pleading for moderators’ foregiveness for any posts and suggestions that offended the moderators, who were bizarrely hostile towards several members. The thread continued on, reaching a crescendo, then moved into Meta Forum and only then being removed to avoid “triggering”. Of course plenty of “triggering” happened in between. So what was the point of all this?

I read about those allegations on Amazon; that’s beyond crazy; you’d think it would take more than someone’s absence to label them as a psychopath… It obviously takes as little as ”this person might dislike us for some reason”. Wow.

My guess is as good as yours; they don’t last very long… Some do however and I wonder why, after witnessing all that.

The reason I was kicked out (left willingly and returned after a week or two out of curiosity, to see if I’d been banned yet) was the cornering of a female member because she had seen her partner (or former partner) a few times without ”declaring” it to the ”establishment”. When I saw someone admonish her and tell her to update her no contact counter I thought this was just a weirder member; surely a mod would kindly step in an call that demand overzealous, in very kind words of course; after all it was an abuse recovery forum. To my surprise, I looked again and saw the rude overzealous individual actually was a mod (or admin; I don’t remember) and that put things in perspective. I then researched the site’s reputation and came across Thomas Sheridan’s blog, which was a huge eye opener, and then found the Amazon comments, which left no doubt. Long story short, I dared to stand up for that member and thought I would never go back there. To my surprise, my account was still accessible days later, which was when I dropped all politeness and was banned in about 10 minutes. To start with, I couldn’t believe the attitude in a so-called compassionate community.

As is the case over there, Eileen, hysteria is common in certain situations where the more vulnerable members who consider the online community their lifeline. I was chums with one of the moderators back when that all came down and it’s quite sad actually yet shows how the leaders have such amazing control over the site.

Questionmark was personal friends with one of the moderators in the real world and suddenly stopped communicating with her. There was no reason for this, since they were such dear and close friends and checked on each other many times a day — other than he must be hurt or dead. They also thought this because Questionmark repeatedly shared that his x girlfriend was a psychopath and was stalking him in real life. He had a bicycle accident where he was hospitalized and suspected it was his x who actually ran him off the road. When he went missing, this friend / moderator alerted the other moderators and administrators and then lengthy discussions ensued where they all analyzed his behaviors since he became a moderator and concluded he was an imposter. There was even mention that he might be from one of the other abuse forums trying to gain some insight knowledge about the leaders there. Administrators of the site knew where his IP was, where he lived, his real name. All of what you share above truly went down. Apparently they could not pinpoint him and thus concluded he had multiple identities and was a predator of vulnerable women. There was even information that he preyed on elderly women in the real world.

Meanwhile, and because of Peace’s quote you show above, general members were in a frenzy that this Questionmark person was dead or missing and thus the plea for him to please let everyone know he was ok. Huge amount of posts were exchanged where the administration had to sadly inform the community that this Questionmark was most likely a psychopath. All of these discussions were eventually removed to the Meta Forum where they disappeared forever, thus no trace of any of this information exists. The one moderator who was friends with this man in real life eventually left as a moderator and then the leaders turned on her as well.

Mia, yes, Searching For Sunshine was personal friends with Questionmark outside of the forum but I don’t really know to what extent. My moderator friend sensed that they probably were dating in real life, but that it was really frowned upon by the leaders. When she announced she wasn’t going to be a moderator anymore, and shortly after the Questionmark incident, I guess the special alliance feel of the team changed because the leaders stopped talking about her completely as if she died. Whether they actually turned on her is just speculation on my part.

In addition to the Questionmark internal investigation that went on by the administrators, there was another incident about this same time that created yet another frenzy and grave repercussions in the real world for an abused young mother who was trying to seek anonymous help on the forum (as do many who come there from abusive situations). She was a new member and obviously in horrible pain, and after sharing her story and details about her life and the abuse she was enduring from a lover, she posted a suicide message. One of the administrators took it upon themselves to track her down in real life and alert the police halfway around the world. The police did show up to her home! She eventually came back to the site very upset because she was in a custody battle and the police had alerted her estranged husband of her suicide threat. He used it against her in the custody battle.

That’s a tough one; alerting the police was a step too far, I think, but they may have thought they were saving her life (or fearing consequences if she killed herself without them trying to intervene). But obviously she had not asked or consented to be tracked down in real life. I’ve met people who make suicide threats online, just to blow off some steam, or feeling really low. And the negative impact this had on her life is just terrible.

All of these stories smack of mental health support being offered by people who are not licensed professionals. The outcome of what they are offering to others is completely damaging and re-traumatized these vulnerable members.

I am not confident that all moderators are survivors. As you know, psychopaths like control and what better platform for control of large number of people than a site dedicated to recruiting vulnerable people who are emerging from an unhealthy relationship and/or living situation. Many of the characteristics of the forum are psychopath-like, including idealization and discard without opportunity for closure, mixed messages (such as why some posts are removed, while others remain for triggering), finding of perfect match (the website), secrecy (despite years out of recovery, administrators and moderators names’ and location are never identified, hidden verbal abuse (Meta Forum), vigilent controlling of behavior because of supposed value for members’ well being and harmonious relationships, in which it becomes apparent with periodic shunning specacles that the slightest suggestion of disagreement leads to swift termination, followed by smear campaign.

Exactly, Eileen. You’ve summed up the site and leaders perfectly. Isn’t is strange how their behaviors mirror everything they are teaching others about psychopathology? Yet they justify that they are not doing this by constantly referring to the thousands and thousands of persons who visit their site, buy the books and share their lives. They must be doing something right, then. What they fail to mention, though, is that the membership is fluid. New people come in all the time and they are able to keep up this facade until those people leave and are replaced by others. How many members on that site are still original members? Few. I believe this is how Social Justice Warriors function for such a long time and so effectively. They count on the fluid movement of memberships and tweak and hone in on their skills and things that are no longer working or what others have called them on or figured out on their own.

Well, the last few times I looked, they had an average of 5 unanswered members (sometimes 4, sometimes 6), and of course they don’t account for all new members. At the same time, I’ve read about people being banned after a few days or even a few posts.

What convinced me of the fact that any good intentions they might’ve had were irrelevant compared to their damaging behaviour was Peace’s enthusiasm for reports, even if they were unfounded/ paranoid. On a couple of pages he encouraged members to report as much as they can, without worrying they might be judged if they were proven wrong. He even boasted that the number of reports had trebled within months and they outnumbered the posts on an entire area. That to me is a sick delight to take in people backstabbing each other with little or no evidence.

If you look at the history of the forum and the moderators and administrators, you can see there has been very few new people let in to the inner circle even though the site has grown immensely. You would think they would need more help, but my guess is that they have so much questionable behavior going on behind the scenes that they can’t chance that anyone new coming in won’t be another imposter like they thought that Questionmark happened to be. Lucky Laura is the newest moderator yet she has publicly declared she is very good friends with the adminstrators in real life. The rest have been there for several years. What happened to Searching For Sunshine, Ex Mrs Psycho, Indie Mom, and Out of the Ashes? From my participation on the site and watching the comings and goings from the start of the site, they were long time moderators, pretty stable and not involved in public call outs and drama, yet some of their accounts have been de-activated. My guess is that they either left quietly having figured out the unhealthy dynamics of it all, were asked to leave, or worse were shut out like some of the members they ban.

Yes, Sandra, that does not add up. They have been recruiting new members and have donation campaigns assuring contributors that thousands of new victims will be helped, yet there is no effort to increase support of forums.

Yes, Maria, you are correct about the unanswered questions being small. That is just when people start a new thread, though. There are two administrators / moderators who are on that site 24/7. So the unanswered question thing is really minor. All it takes is one person to post a reply to the new thread and it leaves the unanswered question area of that site.

Now, Peace inciting enthusiasm to report posts is partly due to what you have said, yet I also think it’s his way of letting members believe that, together with this amazing savior, they are stopping psychopaths left and right. They are the biggest force in the world right now in identifying these evil beings trying to infiltrate the forum. Encouraging members to report is a tactic in keeping them believing they are important in this quest. What Peace and his team is actually doing is a darn good job of filtering anyone on the site who is figuring things out or trying to buck the system. Peace and administration are using members to keep the site as clean as they can.

I guess they sincerely believe in what he does and what they do collectively, although to be honest, I can’t find excuses for reporting potentially innocent people without a guilty conscience. I just can’t.

It’s only fair to expect that an adult who has a problem with your post actually discusses it with you directly, then and there. Whereas on PF one can be blissfully ignorant they are being analysed behind the curtain and keep posting intimate details about their lives while that discussion is going on. It’s inexcusable to not notify people they are being targeted, because they will keep treating everyone there as friends, trusting them, confiding in them.

Coming from a former communist country, I’ve heard countless tales of people being ratted on by their family members, by their work colleagues, by their fellow students about criticising the establishment over a few bottles of beer.

This is in no way the same situation, but I find it disgusting that people rejoice in being in such a community, where they grass on each other all the time (anonymously if they want), with no consequences whatsoever for making false accusations – and without the person being made aware who they were accused by. I find it humiliating to keep replying to people (in blissful ignorance) and sharing your life story with them, without knowing they’ve just raised a false flag about you.

It’s nothing more than school yard bullying and mean girl tactics, Maria. Obviously the people who participate in this kind of behavior on that site are in need of validation and acceptance on some level.

Well, when you are hurting for help and you come across this site that looks so friendly and helpful, it may be difficult to concentrate on reading through the pages of their rules when all you want is immediate relief from your pain. A mew member only has to click that you read them, much like the fine print of anything that you need to skip over in order to get to what you really want. Most people are probably banned due to trial and error. I’ve seen the leaders give warnings and remind people that comments are on the verge of violating the rules. This is all fine, but the rules themselves create quite a tight parameter on what you can and can not say or talk about so if you really do find the site to be helpful to you, you learn to adjust your behavior quickly in order to avoid the pain of discipline or banning (much like what you have been through in real life with an abuser, actually).

Hi, I am a previous administrator for Psychopathfree and I left there several years ago because of disturbing conditions among the other admins. I saw this site some time ago and noticed my admin name mentioned as someone who’d left and then was smeared as psychopathic by the admins there but the post seems to be gone now. Anyway, I thought I’d make myself known here. I’d welcome a private email from Maria if possible.

Hi Odessa. I agree with most of what has been said about the underpinnings of that site and the people who have been running it either through the articles that are here or the hundreds of comments. My agreement comes from immense and long term inside knowledge. I’m scared to death of those people to this day and still look over my shoulder. There is too much to share and I really would not want to anyway but I know without a doubt that I made a huge mistake ever being involved in that situation. My advice to anyone who comes here for confirmation or validation or because you are devastated by what happened to you at PF, please seek real life help with your problems. Online communication and socialization is very, very dangerous and it is very simple to find out who you are and where you live unless you are very sophisticated with technology and internet workings. Please do not use online anonymous forums or friendship groups as your only source of interaction with people. Just don’t do it.

If there is ever any legal action taken against PF for it’s behaviors, I would like to know that. Please publish it here.

Hi, sorry about your comments appearing so late.
You’re right; there’s no telling who you come across online; it’s really not safe to bare your experience with such strangers, and yet they are taken at face value.
I’m not sure what anyone could do about it; probably nothing; aside from warning others about this group.
It’s disturbing to have to look over your shoulder that way, because you interacted with them.